Skip to content
This repository has been archived by the owner on Jan 17, 2025. It is now read-only.

RFC: use otk files instead of otk.arguments #7

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Apr 15, 2024

Conversation

mvo5
Copy link
Contributor

@mvo5 mvo5 commented Apr 10, 2024

The use-case given (and maybe I'm missing other use-cases here) for the otk.arguments is currently "version" and "architecture".

We could do this instead via a fedora-39-amd64.yaml file that just define those arguments. The upside of this is that we can easily see what combinations of version and architecture we support by looking at the top-level dir. It also simplifies the spec and we would not have to worry about validating arguments, i.e. how do we know that "-Dversion=41" is valid or not (if not valid it would probably mean down the line an include based on the version cannot be found and that presents challenges for a nice error message).

It would also allow us to have symlinks when things do not change, e.g.

rhel-9.3.yaml -> rhel-9.4.yaml

But maybe I'm missing another use case for this? Even then I think the fedora/39-amd64.yaml has some merrits and is worth considering.

@supakeen
Copy link
Member

supakeen commented Apr 11, 2024

Let's drop the otk.argument directive until there's a clear usecase for it. Can you update this PR?

The use-case given (and maybe I'm missing other use-cases here) for
the otk.arguments is currently "version" and "architecture".

We could do this instead via a `fedora-39-amd64.yaml` file that
just define those arguments. The upside of this is that we can
easily see what combinations of version and architecture we
support by looking at the top-level dir. It also simplifies the
spec and we would not have to worry about validating arguments,
i.e. how do we know that "-Dversion=41" is valid or not (if not
valid it would probably mean down the line an include based on
the version cannot be found and that presents challenges for a
nice error message).

It would also allow us to have symlinks when things do not change,
e.g.
```
rhel-9.3.yaml -> rhel-9.4.yaml
```

But maybe I'm missing another use case for this? Even then I think
the `fedora/39-amd64.yaml` has some merrits and is worth considering.
Copy link
Member

@achilleas-k achilleas-k left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I really like this simplification. It reduces the scope without limiting functionality.

@supakeen supakeen added this pull request to the merge queue Apr 12, 2024
@github-merge-queue github-merge-queue bot removed this pull request from the merge queue due to no response for status checks Apr 12, 2024
@supakeen supakeen added this pull request to the merge queue Apr 15, 2024
@github-merge-queue github-merge-queue bot removed this pull request from the merge queue due to no response for status checks Apr 15, 2024
@supakeen supakeen added this pull request to the merge queue Apr 15, 2024
@supakeen supakeen removed this pull request from the merge queue due to a manual request Apr 15, 2024
@supakeen supakeen merged commit 6e2206e into osbuild:main Apr 15, 2024
1 check passed
@mvo5 mvo5 deleted the no-arguments branch April 15, 2024 13:53
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants